4441.0 - Voluntary Work, Australia, 2006  
ARCHIVED ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 20/07/2007   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All

APPENDIX CHANGES BETWEEN SURVEYS


CHANGES OVER TIME IN METHODOLOGY

1 The ABS has now conducted three detailed national voluntary work surveys. These were in 1995, 2000 and, most recently, as presented here in 2006. In addition, a short voluntary work module was included in the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS), and a question on volunteering was included in the 2006 Census of Population and Housing.


2 This appendix describes differences between the collections that are likely to affect data comparability. These include differences in collection methodology, in applying the concept of 'voluntary work' and in the classification of the types of organisations with whom volunteers undertook their work. Table A1 summarises some of the key differences. Tables are also included which compare data from earlier years with the closest comparable form of data obtained from the 2006 survey, to show any underlying movements.


Identifying volunteers

3 In each of the three voluntary work surveys, details about volunteering activities were collected by personally interviewing the respondents who were volunteers. However, the means used to identify volunteers in the 1995 survey was different to that used in the subsequent surveys. In the 1995 survey volunteers were first identified by a household member, a responsible adult, who was asked to report whether they or any other household member aged 15 years and over had done voluntary work in the previous 12 months. If any household member was so identified as being a volunteer a further personal interview was organised to obtain more information about their volunteering activities. In subsequent surveys, on the other hand, interviews were organised with randomly selected household members, aged 18 years and over, who were asked whether they themselves had done any voluntary work in the previous 12 months. There was no intermediary respondent involved.


4 When the results of the 2000 survey were first compared to those from the 1995 survey, there was an unexpected increase in the volunteer rate. The differences in collection methodology described above was considered to be an important reason for this increase. The conclusion reached was that respondents could only reliably identify their own participation in voluntary work.


5 To support comparison of the 1995 and 2000 results the ABS reprocessed the 1995 data so that it also only related to respondents who had identified themselves as being volunteers. It is these reprocessed data that are presented in the comparisons shown in tables A2 and A3 on following pages. For further information about the reprocessing of the 1995 survey on the basis of the self-identified population, see Technical Note 2 'Reprocessing of 1995 data' in Voluntary Work, Australia, 2000 (cat. no. 4441.0).


6 As noted above a question about doing voluntary work was also included in the 2006 Census of Population and Housing. This question was asked for persons aged 15 years and over. While comparative data from the census are not presented here it is likely that methodological differences will be important in accounting for any differences in volunteering rates that might be observed. From the household form used in the census, which is a form completed by household members themselves, it is not possible to determine whether each person aged 15 years and over actually answered the question for themselves, or whether it was completed by another household member on their behalf.

A1 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF VOLUNTARY WORK COLLECTIONS

Voluntary Work 1995 Voluntary Work 2000 Voluntary Work short module 2002 Voluntary Work 2006 Voluntary Work question, Census 2006

Survey vehicle Monthly Population Survey Population Survey Monitor General Social Survey General Social Survey Census 2006
Type of questionnaire/ data collection method Paper based forms for face-to-face interview Paper based forms for face-to-face interview Computer- assisted face-to-face interview Computer- assisted face-to-face interview Self completion form delivered and collected by Census collector, or electronically via the internet
Identity of persons asked to identify volunteers in the household Any responsible adult but data was reprocessed in 2002 to refer only to those who answered the questions on their own behalf Only selected individuals were asked to respond on their own behalf Only selected individuals were asked to respond on their own behalf Only selected individuals were asked to respond on their own behalf Any household member including the individual concerned could respond
Age of persons for which volunteering data was collected 15 years and over 18 years and over 18 years and over 18 years and over 15 years and over
Preamble used Yes Yes No Yes Definition re-enforced in Census User Guide
Work for the Dole/Mutual obligation exclusion condition applied No (not applicable) Yes No Yes Yes
Other excluding conditions associated with the 'willingly undertaken' criterion applied No No No Yes Instructions on some exclusions provided
Voluntary work overseas excluded Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Level of detail Long question module Long question module Two questions only Long question module One question only
Details of organisational involvements collected Yes Yes No Yes No


Computer-assisted interviews

7 As opposed to using paper-based questionnaires, as was the case in the 1995 and 2000 surveys, a computer-assisted interview (CAI) method was used in the 2006 survey. This method of collection helps the interview to flow well with inbuilt sequencing and personalised questions. It further increases the quality of the information, as inbuilt edits make it possible to resolve any discrepancies that arise during the course of the interview.


8 The use of CAI also allowed better methods of categorising organisations according to organisation type and sector than had hitherto been available. In previous surveys respondents were asked to categorise the organisations for whom they worked to categories listed on a prompt-card. For some types of organisations, and especially those providing a variety of services, it may have been difficult for respondents to choose an appropriate organisation type category from the prompt card. In the 2006 survey, on the other hand, a precoded list of organisation names (or generic descriptions for common types of organisations such as public or private schools and hospitals) was used to categorise the organisations. The interviewer would select the name of the organisation from the list recorded on their laptop computer, and the organisation type and sector would automatically be applied. The Australian Culture and Leisure Classification of organisation types was also applied in this way to relevant organisations. It is considered that the use of this named-based automatic coding approach is likely to have improved the quality of the counts of volunteers and voluntary work activities attributed to particular organisation types. However, the magnitude of any such improvement cannot be quantified.


Applying the definition of voluntary work

9 The concept of volunteering has not changed over time. For the three full voluntary work surveys, however, there have been some developments and refinements in applying the concept.


10 To help respondents understand what was meant by voluntary work, the 1995 survey was introduced by a defining preamble which read as follows:
'the next few questions are about unpaid voluntary work, that is, help willingly given in the form of time, service or skills'.
Further questions were then asked to ensure that the work was done for, or through, an organisation or group. For the 2000 and 2006 surveys, the words 'to a club, organisation or association' were added to the preamble after the words 'time, service or skills', instead of being asked as a separate question. In all cases, the reference period was the previous 12 months.


11 The definition used for all three surveys, as shown in the wording above, has four criteria for unpaid work in the community to be regarded as voluntary work, namely that it be:

  • unpaid, (reimbursement of costs or an honorarium are not considered as payment);
  • willingly undertaken, (not as the result of a legal or institutional direction);
  • help in the form of time, service or skills (it does not include assistance in the form of money, goods or biological donation such as blood or organs - these are seen as other forms of altruism in their own right);
  • formal, as determined by its being carried out for, or through, an organisation or group, (informal help, given to relatives, friends, neighbours or others, is not included in voluntary work, but this type of assistance is recognised as unpaid community work and participation in this type of work is separately measured in the 2006 GSS).

12 In each of the three surveys, respondents were also instructed to ‘Please exclude any voluntary work done overseas'. Voluntary work done overseas is excluded from the scope of the survey because the data are used to estimate the value of voluntary work to the Australian economy (see Australian National Accounts: Non-profit Institutions Satellite Account, 1999-2000 (cat. no. 5265.0). In addition, it is not possible to measure the full extent of voluntary work undertaken overseas in the reference period by interviewing people who are currently resident in Australia.


13 Each of the four criteria - unpaid, willingly undertaken, actively serving and formal - are important. As other forms of community work through an organisation have become more common, there have been progressive refinements of the 'willingly undertaken' concept.


14 In 2000, a question was introduced to the survey to identify work for organisations done to 'satisfy a requirement to receive Commonwealth benefits such as Newstart'. Such involvements were excluded from voluntary work. This was not seen as a change affecting comparability with the 1995 survey, but as a response to an emerging form of directed community work.


15 Further consideration was given to the 'willingly undertaken' concept and for the 2006 voluntary work survey on the GSS a further set of questions were asked to help determine whether the work was truly willing in nature, or undertaken to comply with legal, educational or labour market requirements. In response to concerns that the work test for income support still allowed for freedom of choice about whether a person did unpaid community work or not, the criterion about satisfying requirements to receive Commonwealth benefits was narrowed (as per the first question in the following paragraph) to refer to the compulsory programs for the longer-term unemployed.


16 The five questions that were asked (of people aged less than 65 years) in respect of each of up to three organisational involvements for the 2006 survey were:

      'Is the reason you assist the (specified organisation):
          1. to take part in the Work for the Dole Program or Community Work under Mutual Obligation?
          2. for work experience, or as part of an unpaid work trial?
          3. because of a community service order?
          4. because of a student placement?
          5. because of emergency work during an industrial dispute?

17 If a respondent answered 'Yes' to any of these questions, the unpaid community work done for that particular organisation was not classed as voluntary work. If there was a positive response to any of these questions for each of the up to three organisations for which a person gave detailed information, the person was excluded from being counted as a volunteer.


18 The concept of voluntary work used by the short voluntary work question set (or module) included in the 2002 GSS was also much the same as that used in the other surveys but there were some differences. In the 2002 survey the question asked: ‘Since this time in [specify month] last year, did you do any unpaid voluntary work for any of these types of organisations [show prompt card]? The question covers the four core criteria described above - unpaid, voluntary (or willing), work, for an organisation. There was not as much emphasis on the 'willingly' criterion as there was for the 2006 survey where the preamble described in paragraph 10 was used.



COMPARISON OF VOLUNTEERING OVER TIME

19 From the 2006 Voluntary Work Survey, it is possible to reconstruct the counts of volunteers in a way that closely equates with criteria used to count volunteers in previous surveys. For the comparisons with 1995 and 2000 data, only the 'work for the dole' related condition associated with the 'willingly undertaken' criterion was applied to the 2006 data. As noted above, a similar criterion to this had been used in 2000 and while this was not the case in the 1995 survey the omission is considered to be irrelevant as such 'work for the dole' schemes had not been widely implemented at that time.


20 To support the comparison of 2006 data with the voluntary work data available from the 2002 GSS, on the other hand, none of the conditions associated with the 'willingly undertaken' criteria used in the 2006 survey were applied. In other words, for both surveys, all persons who identified themselves as being volunteers, whether directed to do the work or not, were included. This follows from the fact that the voluntary work question in the 2002 survey was a short module which did not apply the conditions associated with the 'willingly undertaken' criterion.


Comparison of 1995, 2000 and 2006 Volunteering rates

21 Tables A2 and A3 show 1995, 2000 and 2006 volunteering rates on a comparable basis for persons aged 18 years and over. The data reveal a continuing increase in volunteer rates between these three time points. The increases generally hold for both men and women, and across all age groups, except for men in the 55 to 74 year age range over the more recent 2000 to 2006 period. Worthy of note, though, is the overall decrease in individual hours worked between 2006 and the earlier years, as shown by the median hours for most age by sex groups.

A2 Volunteering, by age and sex - 1995, 2000, 2006(a)

18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years
75-84 years
85 years and over
All persons

Volunteer rate (%)

Males
1995
15.7
18.7
29.9
29.5
23.4
21.5
14.1
8.7
22.9
2000
26.4
25.1
35.2
35.3
33.0
31.1
20.5
10.3
30.5
2006
30.5
28.9
38.3
39.5
27.6
29.9
21.8
*25.7
32.4
Females
1995
17.6
22.1
33.5
26.0
24.3
24.3
17.8
5.3
24.4
2000
27.1
29.9
44.9
35.6
31.9
29.5
18.9
8.0
33.0
2006
33.1
35.0
50.4
40.2
37.9
35.1
22.9
*7.8
37.8
Persons
1995
16.6
20.4
31.7
27.7
23.8
23.0
16.2
6.6
23.6
2000
26.8
27.5
40.1
35.4
32.5
30.3
19.6
8.9
31.8
2006
31.8
31.9
44.4
39.8
32.7
32.6
22.4
14.2
35.1

Total annual hours (million)

Males
1995
25.9
35.0
59.7
53.6
34.8
27.8
7.6
0.4
244.8
2000
31.1
38.1
58.9
71.6
62.4
44.5
13.3
1.4
321.3
2006
28.2
39.6
51.0
76.1
63.9
53.6
*36.2
*1.6
350.2
Females
1995
25.0
38.2
63.3
47.1
39.4
41.8
11.3
0.8
266.9
2000
29.4
46.3
89.7
77.6
77.0
45.5
15.8
1.5
382.8
2006
35.4
45.1
92.2
69.5
68.9
49.5
17.8
**1.3
379.7
Persons
1995
51.0
73.2
123.0
100.7
74.2
69.6
18.9
1.2
511.7
2000
60.4
84.4
148.6
149.3
139.4
90.1
29.1
2.9
704.1
2006
63.6
84.7
143.2
145.6
132.8
103.2
54.0
*2.9
729.9

Median annual hours

Males
1995
64
52
74
80
100
104
104
156
74
2000
52
36
52
80
104
132
57
143
64
2006
40
40
38
60
64
120
*121
**50
52
Females
1995
60
52
78
74
99
117
100
60
74
2000
58
45
80
72
96
130
156
260
74
2006
60
38
58
69
84
81
*90
**47
60
Persons
1995
60
52
76
78
99
108
100
104
74
2000
54
40
72
78
96
131
105
143
72
2006
48
40
49
63
80
104
104
**28
56

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
** estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use
(a) 2006 data are shown on the same basis as 1995 and 2000 data, without the four new conditions associated with the 'willingly undertaken' criterion being applied.

A3 Volunteering, by State and Territory - 1995, 2000, 2006(a)

NSW
Vic.
Qld
SA
WA
Tas.
NT(b)
ACT
Aust.

Volunteer rate (%)

Males
1995
17.1
23.9
26.7
26.8
25.9
29.6
28.7
31.2
22.9
2000
27.1
32.7
28.8
36.4
32.6
34.1
32.2
36.2
30.5
2006
31.6
30.3
35.8
29.8
34.7
33.4
34.1
35.2
32.4
Females
1995
21.3
25.7
26.0
27.3
25.0
24.0
28.8
30.8
24.4
2000
31.4
33.0
33.6
39.5
31.8
33.8
31.2
36.3
33.0
2006
37.1
36.2
40.9
34.3
40.5
39.2
38.7
41.8
37.8
Persons
1995
19.2
24.8
26.4
27.1
25.5
26.8
28.7
31.0
23.6
2000
29.3
32.8
31.2
38.0
32.2
34.0
31.7
36.2
31.8
2006
34.4
33.3
38.4
32.1
37.7
36.3
36.3
38.6
35.1

Total Annual hours (million)

Males
1995
56.2
58.4
60.0
25.0
29.3
8.4
2.9
4.7
244.8
2000
90.3
91.5
53.7
38.4
29.7
9.1
2.7
5.8
321.3
2006
125.7
81.1
68.2
22.0
35.8
9.6
3.0
4.7
350.2
Females
1995
79.0
66.7
53.6
28.1
26.1
6.7
2.4
4.4
266.9
2000
114.3
105.4
62.5
41.9
41.0
9.6
1.7
6.3
382.8
2006
115.4
94.7
89.4
25.8
37.9
8.1
3.1
5.4
379.7
Persons
1995
135.1
125.1
113.6
53.0
55.3
15.0
5.4
9.1
511.7
2000
204.7
196.9
116.2
80.4
70.8
18.7
4.4
12.1
704.1
2006
241.2
175.8
157.6
47.8
73.7
17.7
6.0
10.1
729.9

Median annual hours

Males
1995
70
72
72
90
80
75
104
72
74
2000
60
75
60
80
60
72
80
60
64
2006
64
52
33
60
48
60
48
52
52
Females
1995
72
65
80
86
75
72
84
60
74
2000
72
76
62
80
92
78
64
66
74
2006
56
60
78
53
56
52
69
50
60
Persons
1995
72
72
78
88
78
75
90
66
74
2000
68
76
60
80
72
78
80
60
72
2006
60
60
52
56
52
55
58
52
56

(a) 2006 data are shown on the same basis as the 1995 and 2000 data, without the four new conditions associated with the 'willingly undertaken' criterion being applied.
(b) Refers mainly to urban areas only. See paragraph 8 of the Explanatory notes.



22 Volunteer rates increased in all states and territories between 1995 and 2000 and in most of them between 2000 and 2006. Over the more recent 2000-2006 period the most notable increase occurred in Queensland, with the rate rising from 31% to 38%. Both men and women contributed substantially to the rise in the volunteer rate in Queensland between 2000 and 2006. In contrast the volunteer rate fell in South Australia for both men and women between 2000 and 2006 with the result that the overall volunteering rate fell from 38% to 32%. In Victoria, the decrease in men's volunteering was almost equivalent to the increase in women's volunteering, leading to virtually no change in the volunteer rate. Although in Tasmania a smaller proportion of men volunteered in 2006 than in 2000, the higher rate of volunteering among women led to an increase in the overall volunteer rate.


23 Total hours spent in voluntary work increased by 26 million between 2000 and 2006. The main contributors to this increase were men in New South Wales and Western Australia, and both men and women in Queensland. However, median hours were lower in all states and territories.


Comparison of volunteering rates from the 2006 and 2002 GSS

24 Table A4, constructed on the basis of the criteria described in paragraph 20 above, shows that there was a small, but not significant, increase from 34% to 35% in the volunteer rate among persons aged 18 years and over between 2002 and 2006. Among age and sex groups the increases were greatest among younger women in the 18-44 year age range.

A4 Volunteer rate, By age and sex - 2002 and 2006(a)

2002
2006
Males
Females
Persons
Males
Females
Persons
Age (years)
%
%
%
%
%
%

18-24 years
27.1
29.1
28.1
31.0
33.4
32.2
25-34 years
29.0
28.5
28.8
29.0
35.0
32.0
35-44 years
39.6
44.3
42.0
38.8
50.7
44.8
45-54 years
40.1
38.3
39.2
39.6
40.3
39.9
55-64 years
36.5
39.5
38.0
29.0
38.2
33.6
65-74 years
28.3
35.5
32.0
29.9
35.1
32.6
75-84 years
26.9
24.9
25.8
21.8
22.9
22.4
85 years and over
*13.5
*14.1
*13.9
*25.7
*7.8
14.2
Total
33.7
35.1
34.4
32.8
38.0
35.4

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
(a) 2006 data adjusted to be comparable to 2002, that is, without any of the five conditions associated with the 'willingly undertaken' criterion being applied.



VOLUNTEERING BY ORGANISATION TYPE

25 There are two factors affecting the comparability of 2006 and previous data related to the types of organisations for whom voluntary work was undertaken. One relates to the use of computer-assisted coding of organisation types in 2006. The other is that the classification of the organisation types was modified to some extent in 2006 from that used in the previous surveys. These factors militate against making detailed and accurate time series comparisons of volunteering by organisation type to assess whether or not any real world changes may have occurred. However, the alignment of 2000 and 2006 volunteering rates for similar organisation type categories, provided further below, supports understanding of the issues involved in making any such comparisons and is generally suggestive of little change.


Computer-assisted coding

26 As explained in paragraph 8 the use of computer-assisted interviewing enabled new improved methods to capture data on the organisation types compared to those used in previous surveys. The use of computer-assisted coding based on the name of the organisation has the effect of greater consistency in the allocation of organisations to organisation type categories. Where an organisation could potentially be coded to different categories, such as the Red Cross (e.g. health, emergency services), the respondent was prompted for more detail about the activities of the particular group to ensure the right attribution. In previous surveys, the type of organisation had been selected from a prompt card by the respondent. This change could have an impact across many categories, but the impact is not measurable.


Modification of categories

27 Four modifications were also made to the classification of organisation types used in previous surveys to form a new classification for the 2006 survey. These are described further below.

  • The first modification was to rename the category 'Arts/Culture' to 'Arts/Heritage' and to explicitly include 'zoos and botanic gardens' (which belong with heritage organisations) as part of the new category. In the previous classification 'zoos and botanic gardens' had been included in the 'Sport/recreation' category.
  • The second modification was to separate organisations to do with sport and physical recreation from the category that had previously been titled 'Sport/recreation' and to rename the two resulting categories as follows: 'Sport/physical recreation' and 'Other recreation/interest'. These two new categories can be recombined for comparisons over time but as noted above will exclude 'zoos and botanic gardens' which were reclassified to be part of the Arts/Heritage category. These two changes have brought the voluntary work categories in line with the Australian Culture and Leisure Classification.
  • The third change was to form a new category titled 'Parenting/children/youth' by separating organisations of this type out from other categories as described below:
      • separating parenting and child development related organisations from where they were previously classified as either 'community/welfare' or 'education/training' type organisations, and
      • separating youth development related organisations from where they were previously classified as being 'education/training' type organisations.
    Notwithstanding these changes child care establishments remained in the 'community/welfare' category, and preschools in the education category. According to their function, the types of organisations included in the new 'Parenting/children and youth' category remain more closely aligned with the provision of community/welfare services than with education/training services.
  • The final modification was to restrict the types of organisations included in the 'International organisations' category to those involved in foreign aid and development. As a result of this change, and in accordance with the nature of their activities, organisations concerned with international human rights and peace were reclassified to belong to the 'Law/justice/political' category, and those concerned with environmental matters extending beyond Australia were reclassed to belong to the 'Environment/animal welfare' category. These changes were made because it was often difficult to distinguish national branches from their international organisations based on the names provided by respondents, and both national and international groups interested in human rights and environmental or animal protection issues have local and international concerns.
    The remaining categories (namely: business/professional/union, emergency services, health, and religious) were not affected by category modification.


VOLUNTEERING RATES BY ORGANISATION TYPE IN 2000 AND 2006

A5 Volunteer rate(a), by sex and organisation type - 2000 and 2006

2000
2006
Males
Females
Persons
Males
Females
Persons
Type of organisation(a)
%
%
%
%
%
%

Arts/culture
1.3
2.3
1.8
1.1
1.7
1.4
Business/professional/union
2.1
0.9
1.5
*0.8
0.7
0.7
Combined community/welfare/
education/training/youth(b)
13.3
19.4
16.4
12.9
22.6
17.8
Community/welfare(c)
8.0
10.7
9.4
5.8
9.4
7.6
Education/training(d)
6.1
10.0
8.1
7.5
14.7
11.2
Emergency services
1.9
0.8
1.4
1.7
0.7
1.2
Environmental/animal welfare
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.2
Health
1.5
3.0
2.2
2.3
4.1
3.2
Foreign/international
*0.3
*0.4
*0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
Law/justice/political
0.7
*0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
Religious
4.4
6.5
5.5
5.6
7.9
6.8
Sport/recreation
11.4
7.4
9.4
13.9
8.9
11.4
Other
*0.5
*0.7
0.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
All volunteers
30.5
33.0
31.8
32.4
37.8
35.1

* estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution
(a) 2006 data are on a similar basis to 2002 data, with the Work for the Dole test, only, applied.
(b) Combined categories for comparison purposes.
(c) Includes Parenting/children/youth for 2006.
(d) Includes youth development for 2000.


28 For the comparison of volunteering rates by organisation type in the 2000 and 2006 surveys presented in table A5, 2006 organisation type categories have been restored to the 2000 categories, as far as possible. Thus:

  • 'sport and physical recreation' and 'other recreation and interest' have been recombined to make up the former 'sport/recreation/hobby' category; and
  • 'education/training' includes youth development organisations for 2000, but the 'parenting/children/youth' category has been combined with 'community/welfare' for 2006, as the major part of the new category appeared to have been categorised there in 2000. A combination of these categories has also been provided to support more reliable comparison.
  • otherwise, all categories have been shown individually.

29 First focusing on volunteering rates for the organisation type categories unaffected by classification modification (but possibly affected by the introduction of name-based automatic coding in 2006), the data suggest that there had been little change between 2000 and 2006 in volunteering rates for business/professional/union organisations (around 1% in both years), religious organisations (moving from about 6% to 7%) and health organisations (up from 2% to 3%). There was no change in the rate for emergency service organisations (remaining close to 1% in both years).


30 The data suggest an increase in volunteering for sport/recreation organisations, up from 9% to 11% between 2000 and 2006 respectively. However, this change may in some part have been due to more accurate classification of some involvements which formerly have been classified to arts/culture organisations. When combined (as required to support comparability), volunteering rates for community/welfare organisations and education/training/youth development organisations increased from 16% and 18% in the respective years. Voluntary work rates for arts/culture related organisations and groups was also similar in both years. Altogether, and with the possible exception of volunteering for sport/recreation organisations, the data suggests little overall change in volunteering rates for different organisation types over the 2000-06 period. However, any conclusions about the exact extent of any change can not be made from the available data.